Improving Pain Management Education in US Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy Schools: Making an Impact on Patient Safety
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: Over 100 million patients in the US deal with some sort of pain. The NIH has considered pain management one of the most urgent problems facing health care today. The number of opioid prescriptions has been increasing over the past several decades and along with this the rate of opioid overdose deaths has nearly tripled in the past fifteen years. Proper pain management by health professionals can lead to better patient outcomes including patient safety. However, evidence has suggested that pain management education is not being sufficiently addressed in pre-licensure programs such as nursing, medicine, and pharmacy. The objective of this study is to examine current practices in pain management education within medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools, identify educational gaps, and make recommendations for improvement in education.\nMethods: This descriptive cross sectional study focused on pre-licensure programs in medicine, nursing, and pharmacy. A two-part survey was administered to schools nationwide to evaluate the depth and breadth of pain education. The first part of the survey focused on questions regarding the scope, quantity, and delivery of pain education. This part was adapted from a previous survey by Mezei and colleagues to assess pain curricula in US and Canadian schools. The second part of the survey focused on opioid education. The survey also assessed different teaching methods that are used, and additional demographic information regarding the participating institutions.\nResults: This study is ongoing with results from the survey still being received. Preliminary results show that the most common teaching methods used are didactic lectures, as well as case-based activities and clinical experience. Few institutions are utilizing team-based and interprofessional learning. When looking at opioid education, results show that programs are consistently providing education about behavorial and non-pharmacological management. However, interventional methods, and opioid contracts are not widely taught. Once the survey is completed, analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be conducted to look for differences between educational program types as well as geographical regions.\nConclusions: Based on early results, it is clear that pain education needs to focus more on patient education, and interprofessional learning opportunities. Improving pain education should not just focus on the quantity of time spent in teaching students, but also the quality of educational experiences delivered. Didactic teaching still seems to be the most common method used, but students would benefit from the opportunity of more interprofessional activities as well as team-based learning. The consensus is that medical, pharmacy, and nursing schools should establish formal pain management education in each year of their curricula. Through improving pain management education, health care professionals of the future will be better prepared to manage their patients, which will directly result in improved outcomes, and patient safety.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,023 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».